Mueller will testify July 17

Condor060 · Jun 25, 2019

So after Mueller has stated for months he didn't want to testify, this evening breaking news says Mueller agrees to testify. Yet Mueller was served two subpoenas this evening. That isn't agreeing to testify. This is being compelled to testify.

Biggest question is, why would the guy who actually did the investigation, refuse to testify about his own results. Democrats are so hungry for a win against Trump, they have now compelled Mueller to testify, without even thinking what Republicans are going to be asking.

1. When did you know there was no collusion with the Trump campaign

2, If you knew there was no collusion on (X) date, which you were hired to do, why did you continue this investigation for (X) amount of months after the facts concluded no collusion

3. Why did you only hire mostly Democrat lawyers

4. Why did you lie to the American people and state you were not able to make any criminal recommendations to the Attorney General

5. Did you actually think we spent 30 million dollars for an investigation against the President you couldn't recommend any charges for

6. The moment you found out the FISA court warrant was obtained with false information, why didn't you put that information in your report

7. Why didn't you provide the genesis of this investigation in your report, How this started.

8. Why did you refuse to testify to the report you created

9. Why didn't you include the spying on the Trump campaign in your report

10. If your report couldn't divine any charges from the Attorney General or the DOJ against the President, what will your testimony here today change. Do you have something new that isn't in your report

11. So your testimony here today is just a regurgitation of your original report that failed to provide any criminal recommendations

12. Since you work for the Attorney General, why did you wait until the AG was on a plane to Alaska, to make your public appearance without the knowledge or consent of the AG.

13. Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report

14. Adam Schiff stated he had conclusive evidence of Trump being a Russian agent. Did he provide that information to you.

This is going to be and good day. Republicans must be drooling right now. Democrats think Americans are stupid and they have this idea that Mueller is going to bring to light some information nobody knows.

What is really going to happen is this is going to backfire in their faces so bad. It will be the most entertaining line of questioning you will ever hear.

Slavister · Jun 25, 2019

Condor060 said:
... without even thinking what Republicans are going to be asking.

Here are answers that would not surprise anyone who read the report or followed the investigation. I imagine Mueller would easily respond with something like...

Condor060 said:
1. When did you know there was no collusion with the Trump campaign

I did not investigate "collusion". There is not such offense as explained in the report in plain language, which you apparently did not read.

Condor060 said:
2, If you knew there was no collusion on (X) date, which you were hired to do, why did you continue this investigation for (X) amount of months after the facts concluded no collusion

First, it's a dumb question because "X" date cannot equal "X" amount of months. Disregarding that, I was not hired to investigate Trump-Russian question only. I was hired to investigate Russian interference too, in case you forgot what this is all about. Finally, as already answered, I was not hired to investigate "collusion" at all.

Condor060 said:
3. Why did you only hire mostly Democrat lawyers

I hired based on qualifications, not based on political affiliations.

Condor060 said:
4. Why did you lie to the American people and state you were not able to make any criminal recommendations to the Attorney General

I did not lie to AG. I explained in summary of section 2 why it was not appropriate to make criminal recommendations as per guidelines.

Condor060 said:
5. Did you actually think we spent 30 million dollars for an investigation against the President you couldn't recommend any charges for

Investigation was a net POSITIVE for tax payer. Just Manaford paid over $40 million to tax payers. So question is moot. And yes, you are welcome.

Condor060 said:
6. The moment you found out the FISA court warrant was obtained with false information, why didn't you put that information in your report

Which FISA warrant? Link? Was I supposed to investigate that?

Condor060 said:
7. Why didn't you provide the genesis of this investigation in your report, How this started.

I did. Read the report.

Condor060 said:
8. Why did you refuse to testify to the report you created

Because my work speaks for itself. Its words were chosen carefully and it's not hard to read.

Condor060 said:
9. Why didn't you include the spying on the Trump campaign in your report

Because no spying was identified during our investigations; nor was I hired to investigate this.

Condor060 said:
10. If your report couldn't divine any charges from the Attorney General or the DOJ against the President, what will your testimony here today change. Do you have something new that isn't in your report

No. I was compelled to testify but I don't intend to add any more information.

Condor060 said:
11. So your testimony here today is just a regurgitation of your original report that failed to provide any criminal recommendations

It's regurgitation that I am not allowed to say Trump is criminal. If we thought he was not, after our thorough investigations, I would have told you, but I am not telling you that. And in case I am not being clear, it's up to Congress to make the determination on impeachment based on the facts I laid out. Further, after Trump leaves the office, THEN he can be prosecuted for his crimes... for which I am not allowed to tell you that he is guilty of while he is in the office.

Condor060 said:
12. Since you work for the Attorney General, why did you wait until the AG was on a plane to Alaska, to make your public appearance without the knowledge or consent of the AG.

I came when I was compelled. I do not consult AG schedules.

Condor060 said:
13. Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report

I only include information I could prove.

Condor060 said:
14. Adam Schiff stated he had conclusive evidence of Trump being a Russian agent. Did he provide that information to you.

No.

Condor060 · Jun 25, 2019

My question to Mueller would be:

You stated in your TV public appearance
If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Wouldn't that mean if you had confidence the president did commit a crime, you would have said so?

Slavister · Jun 25, 2019

Condor060 said:
My question to Mueller would be:

You stated in your TV public appearance
If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Wouldn't that mean if you had confidence the president did commit a crime, you would have said so?

No it does not. Mueller explained in black and white in the report that he is NOT ALLOWED to say Trump committed a crime. Therefore doing so in round-about way by saying that if we thought he did not, we would tell you, is as close as he can do it.

You clearly did not bother reading the report. Hint: Summary pages of Volume II - just two pages is all you need for this one.

Mr Person · Jun 25, 2019

Derpity dee derpity doo, the point is to make a more concise record that is more digestible to the public seeing as people are far too lazy to read books let alone a 448 page dry report, let alone one that's on potential criminality on their candidate's part.

Remember: Mueller wasn't allowed to seek indictment of Trump, and the only reason he said no conspiracy was a lack of proof of an explicit agreement between the campaign and Russia. They still knew of and accepted Russia's intent and acts in interference. They welcomed it. But there was no proof of explicit agreement.

They'll still "Win" in the sense that Trump isn't going anywhere. The GOP would never allow it. But let's keep this in perspective, eh?

Condor060 · Jun 25, 2019

Slavister said:
Here are answers that would not surprise anyone who read the report or followed the investigation. I imagine Mueller would easily respond with something like...

I did not investigate "collusion". There is not such offense as explained in the report in plain language, which you apparently did not read.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we know that, its just a talking point.

First, it's a dumb question because "X" date cannot equal "X" amount of months. Disregarding that, I was not hired to investigate Trump-Russian question only. I was hired to investigate Russian interference too, in case you forgot what this is all about. Finally, as already answered, I was not hired to investigate "collusion" at all.

Click to expand...

It is important to determine since the investigation was going on 7 months prior to the assignment of Mueller, when did Mueller know there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Was it when he received the report? If so, why did you spend another 2 years on something that already determined.

I hired based on qualifications, not based on political affiliations.

Click to expand...

Yet all obvious evidence to the contrary

I did not lie to AG. I explained in summary of section 2 why it was not appropriate to make criminal recommendations as per guidelines.

Click to expand...

The AG made it clear to the American people that it was within your parameter to make criminal recommendations. If Ken Starr could do it, what stops you?

Investigation was a net POSITIVE for tax payer. Just Manaford paid over $40 million to tax payers. So question is moot. And yes, you are welcome.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. Why would you believe the AG would hire you and spend money and time for an investigation that couldn't provide a criminal report?

Which FISA warrant? Link? Was I supposed to investigate that?

Click to expand...

You were to report (Section (ii)) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

I did. Read the report.

Click to expand...

You made no mention as to how the Russian investigation started 7 months prior to you being assigned

Because my work speaks for itself. Its words were chosen carefully and it's not hard to read.

Click to expand...

All prosecutors testify to the findings of their reports. Why would you refuse to do the same

Because no spying was identified during our investigations; nor was I hired to investigate this.

Click to expand...

It has already been determined that individuals were planted in the Trump campaign to provide the FBI with information. You were to report (Section (ii)) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. Why didn't you include this in your report.

No. I was compelled to testify but I don't intend to add any more information.

Click to expand...

You don't get to determine the depth or field of questioning from Congress oversight and you don't wright the laws that govern our investigation

It's regurgitation that I am not allowed to say Trump is criminal. If we thought he was not, after our thorough investigations, I would have told you,

Click to expand...

Then by your own standards, if you thought he was a criminal, you would have said so. But you didn't say either.

I came when I was compelled. I do not consult AG schedules.

Click to expand...

When and who compelled you to go on TV and make your announcement without the knowledge or consent of your own boss?

I only include information I could prove.

Click to expand...

You included 488 pages of information you can't prove or recommend a charge for so Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report.

Condor060 · Jun 25, 2019

Slavister said:
No it does not. Mueller explained in black and white in the report that he is NOT ALLOWED to say Trump committed a crime. Therefore doing so in round-about way by saying that if we thought he did not, we would tell you, is as close as he can do it.

You clearly did not bother reading the report. Hint: Summary pages of Volume II - just two pages is all you need for this one.

Every Special counsel since the beginning of time can make criminal recommendation. The Attorney General stated Mueller could have made criminal recommendations. Ken Starr made criminal recommendations.

What is special about Mueller.

Condor060 · Jun 25, 2019

Mr Person said:
Derpity dee derpity doo, the point is to make a more concise record that is more digestible to the public seeing as people are far too lazy to read books let alone a 448 page dry report, let alone one that's on potential criminality on their candidate's part.

Remember: Mueller wasn't allowed to seek indictment of Trump, and the only reason he said no conspiracy was a lack of proof of an explicit agreement between the campaign and Russia. They still knew of and accepted Russia's intent and acts in interference. They welcomed it. But there was no proof of explicit agreement.

They'll still "Win" in the sense that Trump isn't going anywhere. The GOP would never allow it. But let's keep this in perspective, eh?

Nobody is questioning Muellers inability to Indict a president. But he can make criminal recommendations to the AG. Barr confirmed it and Ken Starr did it. What makes Mueller so special

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Anyone else got a question for Mueller. Lets make a list

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Mueller Mueller Mueller

Slavister · Jun 26, 2019

Part 1 of 2

Condor060 said:
Yeah, we know that, its just a talking point.

If you know it, why are you asking dumb questions?

Condor060 said:
It is important to determine since the investigation was going on 7 months prior to the assignment of Mueller, when did Mueller know there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Was it when he received the report? If so, why did you spend another 2 years on something that already determined.

I gave you a response. You ignored it and went back to your talking point. I already said Mueller was not hired to investigate ONLY conspiracy between Trump and Russia. He was also hired to investigate the extent of Russian interference itself, NO MATTER WHAT Trump DID. So, even if Mueller knew on day 1 that Trump did not conspire, it does not matter. He had this other issue to investigate too. Further, he did find massive interference that Russians did in our election, something that Trump seems to ignore or even deny to this day.

Trumpsters don't like to think about it, since it was designed to help Trump, and as Mueller proved, Trump more than welcomed such help. In fact, Trump campaign SEEKED OUT Russian help. He could not prove conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it does not erase the facts that Russians helped Trump and expected good treatment in return, and Trump seeked out their help and does not mind providing them a very good treatment now.

Condor060 said:
Yet all obvious evidence to the contrary

Obvious evidence? Nope - just completely baseless speculation by the right to try to smear an important investigation.

Condor060 said:
The AG made it clear to the American people that it was within your parameter to make criminal recommendations. If Ken Starr could do it, what stops you?

Already asked and answered above in this post. PLUS, Mueller answered it in his report.

Condor060 said:
That wasn't the question. Why would you believe the AG would hire you and spend money and time for an investigation that couldn't provide a criminal report?

Really? FBI did try to do it without special counsel? Did you forget what happened? Trump tried to obstruct that investigation and asked FBI director to go easy on his people like Flynn. When FBI director refused, Trump fired him (while "thinking about that Russia thing" according to Trump) and told Russians the next day that he dealt a blow to this Russian investigation!

Have you checked how many indictments Mueller investigation produced? With President running around OBSTRUCTING justice and firing people who don't agree, you think Manafort would be in jail now? You think all those indictments see the light of day?

Keep deluding yourself.

Condor060 said:
You were to report (Section (ii)) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

I asked for a Link and asked which FISA warrant. You did not provide either one. That's telling.

Condor060 said:
You made no mention as to how the Russian investigation started 7 months prior to you being assigned

That was a previous investigation. Why is he supposed to comment on that? He was not tasked with investigating prior investigations.

Further, considering that you clearly did not read (or did not comprehend) the report, I doubt you have actually any idea whether there WAS a mention or not.

Slavister · Jun 26, 2019

Part 2 of 2

Condor060 said:
All prosecutors testify to the findings of their reports. Why would you refuse to do the same

Because his work speaks for itself. Its words were chosen carefully and it's not hard to read. Mueller was not a prosecutor in this case but a special counsel.

Condor060 said:
It has already been determined that individuals were planted in the Trump campaign to provide the FBI with information. You were to report (Section (ii)) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. Why didn't you include this in your report.

Determined when? By whom? In the course of Mueller investigation? Prove it. Then we can talk.

Condor060 said:
You don't get to determine the depth or field of questioning from Congress oversight and you don't wright the laws that govern our investigation

Mueller gets to determine how to answer the questions. Ask away. He will answer just fine.

Condor060 said:
Then by your own standards, if you thought he was a criminal, you would have said so. But you didn't say either.

Nope, he said he was not allowed to do that. But you keep pretending you don't understand plain English. Keep running in circles.

Condor060 said:
When and who compelled you to go on TV and make your announcement without the knowledge or consent of your own boss?

I thought you were talking about the upcoming testimony on July 17. As to the TV statement he made, I don't get your question - reporters and Congress keep asking him to make comments, so he made a statement that just repeated what's in his report. What's the big deal?

Condor060 said:
You included 488 pages of information you can't prove or recommend a charge for so Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report.

He can prove it, but he is not allowed to recommend a charge for sitting President. In case you did not notice, he recommended a LOT of other charges. This has been a VERY PRODUCTIVE investigation charging a lot of Trump inner circle people in case you did not notice, let alone a bunch of Russian entities and people.

He included whatever he could prove, and I am guessing he got some tips from Steele dossier to help him too.

Is there some law that he was supposed to include Steele dossier in his report? I was not aware of one.

Condor060 said:
Every Special counsel since the beginning of time can make criminal recommendation. The Attorney General stated Mueller could have made criminal recommendations. Ken Starr made criminal recommendations.

What is special about Mueller.

Ken Starr and other operated under DIFFERENT set of rules. There were NOT special counsels.

AG Barr decided to say what you said AFTER the investigation was DONE and OVER WITH. AGs did NOT say the same thing while investigation was open.

chuckiechan · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
So after Mueller has stated for months he didn't want to testify, this evening breaking news says Mueller agrees to testify. Yet Mueller was served two subpoenas this evening. That isn't agreeing to testify. This is being compelled to testify.

Biggest question is, why would the guy who actually did the investigation, refuse to testify about his own results. Democrats are so hungry for a win against Trump, they have now compelled Mueller to testify, without even thinking what Republicans are going to be asking.

1. When did you know there was no collusion with the Trump campaign

2, If you knew there was no collusion on (X) date, which you were hired to do, why did you continue this investigation for (X) amount of months after the facts concluded no collusion

3. Why did you only hire mostly Democrat lawyers

4. Why did you lie to the American people and state you were not able to make any criminal recommendations to the Attorney General

5. Did you actually think we spent 30 million dollars for an investigation against the President you couldn't recommend any charges for

6. The moment you found out the FISA court warrant was obtained with false information, why didn't you put that information in your report

7. Why didn't you provide the genesis of this investigation in your report, How this started.

8. Why did you refuse to testify to the report you created

9. Why didn't you include the spying on the Trump campaign in your report

10. If your report couldn't divine any charges from the Attorney General or the DOJ against the President, what will your testimony here today change. Do you have something new that isn't in your report

11. So your testimony here today is just a regurgitation of your original report that failed to provide any criminal recommendations

12. Since you work for the Attorney General, why did you wait until the AG was on a plane to Alaska, to make your public appearance without the knowledge or consent of the AG.

13. Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report

14. Adam Schiff stated he had conclusive evidence of Trump being a Russian agent. Did he provide that information to you.

This is going to be and good day. Republicans must be drooling right now. Democrats think Americans are stupid and they have this idea that Mueller is going to bring to light some information nobody knows.

What is really going to happen is this is going to backfire in their faces so bad. It will be the most entertaining line of questioning you will ever hear.

Mueller cant say much beyond the unredacted report. His security clearances and confidentiality agreements are still in force after retirement. What he can do is answer any question about things not in the report - FISA, Mr. Steel, and other revelations uncovered by Mr. Barr during his on going investigation.

Don’t expect him to say Trump is guilty of anything.

Why? The dottering old bastard’s name is on a report written by Andrew Weissman and now his legacy is smoking rubble like everyone else who gets anywhere near a Clinton.

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Slavister said:
Part 2 of 2 .

FIrst off, what most critics of Trump continue to state he obstructed justice. Since it was determined that there was no conspiracy already determined by Mueller, this is a near impossible feat to prove. In order for a president to commit obstruction he must be found guilty of suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence and you don't get to determine what those are. They have already been determined.

Firing Comey, asking others to fire Mueller, conversation about what if I did this do not fall within that parameter. If they did, Mueller would have made the recommendation. Add to the fact that their clearly was no conspiracy to assist the Russians in any election tampering, this is not going any further.

Mueller made it clear prior to his TV debut that his decision not to make a criminal recommendation had nothing to do with the OLC opinion. Barr even testified to this and had witnesses to corroborate this conversation.

On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision on Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC

Then he came on TV and said the exact opposite. He stated the OLC opinion precluded him from making any criminal recommendations, which isn't true. The only difference between Starr and Mueller is Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller was a Special counsel. Starr is appointed by a Federal Judge and Mueller is appointed by the Attorney General. Both are bound by the OLC opinion that states you can't indict a sitting president.

A Special counsel reports its findings to the Attorney General and the Independent Counsel reports to Congress. Other than that, both are under the identical rules for charging a president.

There is no DOJ, AG, or any other office memorandum or opinion the stops either Mueller or Starr from making criminal recommendations. You will never find such but please feel free to post a link stating the DOJ opinion, recommendation, or internal policy that precludes a Special counsel from making a criminal recommendation. Such information doesn't exist and if it did you would have found it months ago.

Mueller sucked you guys in with his TV statement when he said "because of Office of Legal Counsel guidance, his team did not have the option of charging a sitting president with a crime". This has NOTHING to do with making criminal recommendations. Mueller or Starr can't convene a grad jury and get an indictment or charge the president with a crime. But he can tell the AG that Trump committed a crime, the AG would make such recommendation to Congress, and Congress would move to impeach. Thats how it works.

TO add to this debacle, Barr came out in his interview the day after Muellers unscheduled TV statements to clear the air. He stated that Mueller could have made a criminal recommendation. Now it doesn't matter what names you want to call Barr as it has no purpose but to just hate on the guy. Barr is the AG, he is Muellers boss, and he makes those decisions. Mueller is an employee. He doesn't get to determine anything. He is ordered by the DOJ and AG to perform (X) task.

Starr did make 11 criminal recommendation of which 3 stuck and Clinton was disbarred. If you think that Starr had some special power over Mueller, please post it.

Grandpappy · Jun 26, 2019

Ya, can't wait to hear the questions from the Republicans. The Nadler/Schiff insanity is completely predictable BS, though.

Tanngrisnir · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
Every Special counsel since the beginning of time can make criminal recommendation. The Attorney General stated Mueller could have made criminal recommendations. Ken Starr made criminal recommendations.

What is special about Mueller.

Oh, dearest me. You've stepped in the same bucket again.

Starr was a special prosecutor. Mueller was not.

You should try and remember words.

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, dearest me. You've stepped in the same bucket again.

Starr was a special prosecutor. Mueller was not.

You should try and remember words.

Did you have an opinion on what those differences were, or are you here just to insult and badger?

roughdraft274 · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
So after Mueller has stated for months he didn't want to testify, this evening breaking news says Mueller agrees to testify. Yet Mueller was served two subpoenas this evening. That isn't agreeing to testify. This is being compelled to testify.

Biggest question is, why would the guy who actually did the investigation, refuse to testify about his own results. Democrats are so hungry for a win against Trump, they have now compelled Mueller to testify, without even thinking what Republicans are going to be asking.

1. When did you know there was no collusion with the Trump campaign

2, If you knew there was no collusion on (X) date, which you were hired to do, why did you continue this investigation for (X) amount of months after the facts concluded no collusion

3. Why did you only hire mostly Democrat lawyers

4. Why did you lie to the American people and state you were not able to make any criminal recommendations to the Attorney General

5. Did you actually think we spent 30 million dollars for an investigation against the President you couldn't recommend any charges for

6. The moment you found out the FISA court warrant was obtained with false information, why didn't you put that information in your report

7. Why didn't you provide the genesis of this investigation in your report, How this started.

8. Why did you refuse to testify to the report you created

9. Why didn't you include the spying on the Trump campaign in your report

10. If your report couldn't divine any charges from the Attorney General or the DOJ against the President, what will your testimony here today change. Do you have something new that isn't in your report

11. So your testimony here today is just a regurgitation of your original report that failed to provide any criminal recommendations

12. Since you work for the Attorney General, why did you wait until the AG was on a plane to Alaska, to make your public appearance without the knowledge or consent of the AG.

13. Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report

14. Adam Schiff stated he had conclusive evidence of Trump being a Russian agent. Did he provide that information to you.

This is going to be and good day. Republicans must be drooling right now. Democrats think Americans are stupid and they have this idea that Mueller is going to bring to light some information nobody knows.

What is really going to happen is this is going to backfire in their faces so bad. It will be the most entertaining line of questioning you will ever hear.

It's absolutely astounding to me that Mueller released a report that point blank says "We did not look at collusion, there is no legal basis to investigate collusion, we investigated conspiracy" and yet Trump supporters are still saying "he said there's absolutely no collusion!"

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
It's absolutely astounding to me that Mueller released a report that point blank says "We did not look at collusion, there is no legal basis to investigate collusion, we investigated conspiracy" and yet Trump supporters are still saying "he said there's absolutely no collusion!"

We all know this by now. Its only used as a reference because of the 2 years of Liberal media hype as a talking point. We all know he investigated Conspiracy.

Idiometer · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
So after Mueller has stated for months he didn't want to testify, this evening breaking news says Mueller agrees to testify. Yet Mueller was served two subpoenas this evening. That isn't agreeing to testify. This is being compelled to testify.

Biggest question is, why would the guy who actually did the investigation, refuse to testify about his own results. Democrats are so hungry for a win against Trump, they have now compelled Mueller to testify, without even thinking what Republicans are going to be asking.

1. When did you know there was no collusion with the Trump campaign

2, If you knew there was no collusion on (X) date, which you were hired to do, why did you continue this investigation for (X) amount of months after the facts concluded no collusion

3. Why did you only hire mostly Democrat lawyers

4. Why did you lie to the American people and state you were not able to make any criminal recommendations to the Attorney General

5. Did you actually think we spent 30 million dollars for an investigation against the President you couldn't recommend any charges for

6. The moment you found out the FISA court warrant was obtained with false information, why didn't you put that information in your report

7. Why didn't you provide the genesis of this investigation in your report, How this started.

8. Why did you refuse to testify to the report you created

9. Why didn't you include the spying on the Trump campaign in your report

10. If your report couldn't divine any charges from the Attorney General or the DOJ against the President, what will your testimony here today change. Do you have something new that isn't in your report

11. So your testimony here today is just a regurgitation of your original report that failed to provide any criminal recommendations

12. Since you work for the Attorney General, why did you wait until the AG was on a plane to Alaska, to make your public appearance without the knowledge or consent of the AG.

13. Why didn't you include the information from the Steele dossier in your report

14. Adam Schiff stated he had conclusive evidence of Trump being a Russian agent. Did he provide that information to you.

This is going to be and good day. Republicans must be drooling right now. Democrats think Americans are stupid and they have this idea that Mueller is going to bring to light some information nobody knows.

What is really going to happen is this is going to backfire in their faces so bad. It will be the most entertaining line of questioning you will ever hear.

I would really love it if the Republican members of those two committees would ask your questions. What a hoot that would be!

opcorn2:

Mueller did not actually refuse to testify, he just stated that he would not do so voluntarily and that if he did, his answers to questions would all come directly from his report. Issuing subpoenas just makes it easier for him to agree to testify, along with the fact that he no longer works for Barr or this administration.

Grandpappy · Jun 26, 2019

"...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” -The Mueller Report

Right there in black and white.....

roughdraft274 · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
We all know this by now. Its only used as a reference because of the 2 years of Liberal media hype as a talking point. We all know he investigated Conspiracy.

Do they? You wouldn't know that by listening to them. Hell, if you continue on down your first post it's lie after lie, baseless accusation after baseless accusation. It begins, continues and finishes with bull****.

Tanngrisnir · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
Did you have an opinion on what those differences were, or are you here just to insult and badger?

I'm not insulting or badgering.

Over and over again you've tried to equate the mandates of Starr and Mueller and they're not the same.

It's not my problem that you keep doing that.

Tanngrisnir · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
We all know this by now. Its only used as a reference because of the 2 years of Liberal media hype as a talking point. We all know he investigated Conspiracy.

And yet the report details all kinds of collusion.

What a crazy, mixed-up world, eh?

roughdraft274 · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
FIrst off, what most critics of Trump continue to state he obstructed justice. Since it was determined that there was no conspiracy already determined by Mueller, this is a near impossible feat to prove. In order for a president to commit obstruction he must be found guilty of suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence and you don't get to determine what those are. They have already been determined.

Firing Comey, asking others to fire Mueller, conversation about what if I did this do not fall within that parameter. If they did, Mueller would have made the recommendation. Add to the fact that their clearly was no conspiracy to assist the Russians in any election tampering, this is not going any further.

Mueller made it clear prior to his TV debut that his decision not to make a criminal recommendation had nothing to do with the OLC opinion. Barr even testified to this and had witnesses to corroborate this conversation.

On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision on Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC

Then he came on TV and said the exact opposite. He stated the OLC opinion precluded him from making any criminal recommendations, which isn't true. The only difference between Starr and Mueller is Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller was a Special counsel. Starr is appointed by a Federal Judge and Mueller is appointed by the Attorney General. Both are bound by the OLC opinion that states you can't indict a sitting president.

A Special counsel reports its findings to the Attorney General and the Independent Counsel reports to Congress. Other than that, both are under the identical rules for charging a president.

There is no DOJ, AG, or any other office memorandum or opinion the stops either Mueller or Starr from making criminal recommendations. You will never find such but please feel free to post a link stating the DOJ opinion, recommendation, or internal policy that precludes a Special counsel from making a criminal recommendation. Such information doesn't exist and if it did you would have found it months ago.

Mueller sucked you guys in with his TV statement when he said "because of Office of Legal Counsel guidance, his team did not have the option of charging a sitting president with a crime". This has NOTHING to do with making criminal recommendations. Mueller or Starr can't convene a grad jury and get an indictment or charge the president with a crime. But he can tell the AG that Trump committed a crime, the AG would make such recommendation to Congress, and Congress would move to impeach. Thats how it works.

TO add to this debacle, Barr came out in his interview the day after Muellers unscheduled TV statements to clear the air. He stated that Mueller could have made a criminal recommendation. Now it doesn't matter what names you want to call Barr as it has no purpose but to just hate on the guy. Barr is the AG, he is Muellers boss, and he makes those decisions. Mueller is an employee. He doesn't get to determine anything. He is ordered by the DOJ and AG to perform (X) task.

Starr did make 11 criminal recommendation of which 3 stuck and Clinton was disbarred. If you think that Starr had some special power over Mueller, please post it.

The OLC opinion that you can't indict a sitting president wasn't written until after the starr report...

Jesus Christ. Bull****, bull****, bull**** and more bull****.

Mueller will testify July 17

Condor060

Slavister

Condor060

Slavister

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Condor060

Condor060

Condor060

Condor060

Condor060

Slavister

Slavister

chuckiechan

Condor060

Grandpappy

America First Populist

Tanngrisnir

Condor060

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Condor060

Idiometer

Grandpappy

America First Populist

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Tanngrisnir

Tanngrisnir

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird